Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I have one or two comments; I have been in classes with Endo Sensei several times, and am familiar with his three teaching DVDs.

First of all, the aikido that Endo teaches is recognisably in the lineage of Yamaguchi Sensei, but at the same time Endo has very much made it his own, and has a particularly well-organised teaching methodology. He communicates very clearly what the essence of his aikido is about: relaxed body, instant contact with the partner, continous control of the partner's centre. I disagree strongly with Szczepan's assertion that Endo is teaching poorly-assimilated Yamaguchi aikido. In the 1980s I attended several of Yamaguchi Sensei's classes in the UK and took ukemi from him numerous times and, although Yamaguchi's aikido was unique and singularly impressive, I believe Endo's pedagogy is clearer and more suitable for Western comprehension.

It is interesting how Szczepan's description of Endo Sensei's class reminds me of my own teacher, Kanetsuka Sensei. He hardly ever teaches aikido techniques these days, concentrating on relaxation, posture and direct control of the partner's balance (and indeed we spend rather more time listening to him talking than we do practising ourselves!). I don't think anyone would criticise Kanetsuka as "non-martial", as he likes strong grips and solid attacks, and you are immediately aware of who is in charge once you grab him. He actually states that he isn't teaching aikido as such, but aiki, kokyu and other essentials that enable us to practise aikido. My opinion is that the essence of what Endo and Kanetsuka are teaching is one and the same.

I get the impression that at the seminar Szczepan attended Endo was trying to get particular points across. Many people in aikido repeat techniques in an almost robotic fashion, regardless of whose class they are in, and I think some teachers avoid teaching "standard" techniques in a "normal" way for very much this reason.

Echoing Carsten's point, I was present for a yudansha grading at Hombu Dojo six years ago at which Endo Sensei was officiating (I believe he is still the chair of the Hombu Examination Committee), and the grading was absolutely straightforward and clear.

In the 1980s I attended several of Yamaguchi Sensei's classes in the UK and took ukemi from him numerous times and, although Yamaguchi's aikido was unique and singularly impressive, I believe Endo's pedagogy is clearer and more suitable for Western comprehension.

Of course, I agree, Endo sensei pedagogy is much more clearer. On Yamaguchi sensei seminars I often had impression that even Yamaguchi sensei himself didn't know what exactly he was doing LOL

However, I have impression that Endo sensei is not teaching. First he talks 15 minutes, then he takes a uke, and practice with him many combination of movements that has one or two principle in common (but a form of every movement is very different) for 5 minutes. When dojo can finally start to practice, he takes another uke and again execute other movements with him (not even techniques). Immediately, ppl sit down around him and start to admire how good he is (he was actually very surprised that in Montreal, folks tried actually to practice instead of admiring him LOL). Then he stops practice and start to talk again.
You call it well developed pedagogy? - I think we have very different definition of 'teaching'.

Quote:

Alex Megann wrote:

He actually states that he isn't teaching aikido as such, but aiki, kokyu and other essentials that enable us to practise aikido. My opinion is that the essence of what Endo and Kanetsuka are teaching is one and the same.

Alex

It only confirms my point, that Endo sensei is not teaching aikido anymore, just as Kanetsuka sensei. At least Kanetsuka sensei honestly recognizes it.
I had a great pleasure to learn from Kanetsuka sensei during few years when he was still teaching aikido techniques beside some other interesting exercises. I think you need a good balance between them; otherwise it will denature the development of students. Those students, who never did any aikido techniques and practice only ‘essence' will not have a good understanding of aikido that O sensei created.

You can find everything you did in that two hour class on one of the three basic DVDs (one of them shows his kihon waza) and on one of his Seminar DVDs.
With explanations, preparatory exercises, alternatives, ways to techniques, showing common mistakes or difficulties and and and.

One of the things his scholars like is his precices and efficient way of teaching.

Shouldn't call it aikido anymore ...?
Do you know Endo's technique, his kihon waza?
Have you ever seen a dan-examination held by Endo?

May I ask which style of Aikido you are doing?

Carsten

Hello Carsten,
I see you are one of ‘believers'. One of those, who during seminars, sit around and admire Endo sensei beautiful technique and how well he applies very sophisticated principles?

See, me, I'm not sitting during seminars. I'm not learning from books, DVD or from talks. I'm using all this time for purely physical practice. And you know what I learned? You can't teach beginners very sophisticated elements. Even if these elements are ‘the essence' of aikido. There were many other instructors, not only Yamaguchi and Endo sensei that were trying to teach only ‘essence' to beginners i.e. Hirokazu Kobayashi, Nakazono sensei, K.Tohei…etc…

I had many opportunities to practice with students of those instructors during all these years, and see the result of their teaching. In all cases, those who didn't have very solid basic training, were not able to apply even roughly a single one of those sophisticated details with someone who was not very familiar with their style. I'm talking here about normal, friendly practice, not any kaeshi waza training.

Those, who practice only ‘essence' didn't understand at all martial principles i.e. correct distance, because nobody ever hit them strongly in the head or in the stomach with the hand, foot or a weapon….What it worst, they always blamed uke for the failure of their techniques. So they will never develop misogi training. And will not reach a goal of aikido.

As you see, the weakness here is not a particular aikido style, or instructor, but the way of teaching. Don't feel offended personally by my writing, I really have very wide experience with different aikido styles, so I can compare and see the strong points but also the weaknesses.

However, I have impression that Endo sensei is not teaching. First he talks 15 minutes, then he takes a uke, and practice with him many combination of movements that has one or two principle in common (but a form of every movement is very different) for 5 minutes. When dojo can finally start to practice, he takes another uke and again execute other movements with him (not even techniques). Immediately, ppl sit down around him and start to admire how good he is (he was actually very surprised that in Montreal, folks tried actually to practice instead of admiring him LOL). Then he stops practice and start to talk again.
You call it well developed pedagogy? - I think we have very different definition of 'teaching'.

Actually your experience of Endo Sensei at the Montreal course is not consistent with mine elsewhere. I should say that I haven't seen him for five or six years now, so he may have changed his teaching style, but in my experience Endo Sensei's classes are very clearly taught and structured, and when I saw him at Hombu Dojo in 1993 he was certainly teaching "standard" aikido techniques. His first DVD (Kihon no Kata) contains nothing but "normal" aikido techniques.

Quote:

Szczepzuk wrote:

It only confirms my point, that Endo sensei is not teaching aikido anymore, just as Kanetsuka sensei. At least Kanetsuka sensei honestly recognizes it.
I had a great pleasure to learn from Kanetsuka sensei during few years when he was still teaching aikido techniques beside some other interesting exercises. I think you need a good balance between them; otherwise it will denature the development of students. Those students, who never did any aikido techniques and practice only ‘essence' will not have a good understanding of aikido that O sensei created.

I have to agree at least in part, as it happens. I have found for a quite a few years now that some students who only ever train in Kanetsuka Sensei's classes (though not all) have limited understanding of basic techniques, and this is evident in their gradings. Even twenty or twenty-five years ago, when he was regularly teaching technique, as well as a lot of sword practice, I noticed that many of his close students concentrated particularly on the "first contact" part of his teaching, but had no sense of flow or of relaxed breathing after that point.

Endo Sensei's teaching DVDs have been mentioned in this thread; Kanetsuka Sensei has made two teaching videos, which I believe will shortly be available in DVD format: these are prosaically entitled "6th Kyu to 5th Kyu" and "4th Kyu to 3rd Kyu", and as the names suggest are largely technical demonstrations. As I understand it, he teaches things in in his classes which he feels can only be transmitted in person, while he encourages us to study his videos to learn how to execute techniques. I would think that Endo Sensei has a similar intention when he conducts overseas seminrs.

My knee-jerk reaction was to respond with something like "do you really want Endo Sensei to travel half way around the globe to teach ikkyo?" . Then I thought - why shouldn't he? Ikkyo is an Aikido technique, Endo Sensei is an Aikido instructor - what's the problem then? So I took some time to recall the practice at the seminars with Endo Sensei that I attended in the past, and remembered quite vividly that we did practice standard Aikido techniques, ikkyo included.

An important point, however, is that I assume Endo Sensei would like to be able to teach his ikkyo (if we can agree that there's more than one valid interpretation of this "basic" technique). And in order to be able to do that, he needs to establish a common vocabulary, intent and feeling with the practitioners in attendance. To this end, my understanding is that he developed a number of exercises, and he asks the practitioners to go through these, as building blocks for the material to follow. I didn't attend the Montreal training, but my guess is that there were quite a few practitioners there for whom this was their first exposure to Endo Sensei's style, so it would seem only natural that Endo Sensei took considerable time to explain what was supposed to be going on.

Sometimes the "shut up and train" approach is useless - if the practitioner didn't understand the goal or the method of the exercise the instructor is asking to practice, what is the instructor to do? Just let the students in attendance do whatever, and move on? What is the point of this training?

To address Szczepan's remark "you can't teach beginners very sophisticated elements" : I never got the impression that Endo Sensei was trying to do that. During a Toronto seminar a few years ago, Endo Sensei specifically insisted on teaching a separate class for white belts only, and worked only on the basics. Something as basic as giving a proper yokomen strike and taking a proper ukemi from yokomen-uchi shiho-nage, for example.

Ron, I'm curious: are you saying that Szczepan's point about using the kind of training described for beginners vs advanced students is very well taken because you attended Endo Sensei's seminars, and reached the same conclusion - that he teaches things way too advanced for the attendees (if this was indeed Szczepan's point)? Or simply that the point itself, that instruction should be appropriate for beginners or advanced students, is a valid one (which, as I understand, noone here disputes) ?

I have to say, based on the discussions here, Mr. S has made some very strong points, and they have not been successfully refuted yet (in my opinion).

His point about the difference between using the kind of training described for beginners vs advanced students is very well taken.

Best,
Ron (refuting his claims based on "loyalty" isn't really convincing at all)

I dunno Ron,

I agree with his point on advanced vs.beginners, but he is clearly not a beginner by his own admission.

If he could not or would not follow sensei's teaching during the seminar, guess that is his own fault, not senseis.

As the only other person present at this seminar posting on this thread, looks like 50% didnt get what they wanted ("See, me, I'm not sitting during seminars. I'm not learning from books, DVD or from talks. I'm using all this time for purely physical practice.") and the other 50% had no problem understanding and applying the martial applications of timeing, spacing and connection, and not gripeing too much about all the seiza and listening.

If I cant follow a teacher, or dont like what they are doing, that is my own business, and its up to me to remedy it for myself (read find another teacher or work harder at understanding what they are teaching), whether at a seminar or at a regular class.

Ron, I'm curious: are you saying that Szczepan's point about using the kind of training described for beginners vs advanced students is very well taken because you attended Endo Sensei's seminars, and reached the same conclusion - that he teaches things way too advanced for the attendees (if this was indeed Szczepan's point)? Or simply that the point itself, that instruction should be appropriate for beginners or advanced students, is a valid one (which, as I understand, noone here disputes) ?

With best regards,
Daniel

The latter I think. I guess my issue is the responses to his posts seemed to be emotionally based upon the fact that he has the "nerve" to speak up about his fairly well-considered opinion. I thought I'd chime in against that strain.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

I agree with his point on advanced vs.beginners, but he is clearly not a beginner by his own admission.

If he could not or would not follow sensei's teaching during the seminar, guess that is his own fault, not senseis.

I don't know...If he could not it might be no one's fault. Or it might be the instructor's fault. Or it might be his...who knows? Why do we assume that the participant is clueless and the instructor is always right?

Quote:

As the only other person present at this seminar posting on this thread, looks like 50% didnt get what they wanted ("See, me, I'm not sitting during seminars. I'm not learning from books, DVD or from talks. I'm using all this time for purely physical practice.") and the other 50% had no problem understanding and applying the martial applications of timeing, spacing and connection, and not gripeing too much about all the seiza and listening.

Well, when you characterize his position negatively to start, it seems like his concerns are not even being given a fair chance. I can understand the issue with too much talk and not enough training...I've left dojo because of that.

To balance that perspective...it should be noted that many of Ueshiba's students wanted the "old man" to shut up and let them train...many of them kind of regretted that attitude later on I'm told.

Quote:

If I cant follow a teacher, or dont like what they are doing, that is my own business, and its up to me to remedy it for myself (read find another teacher or work harder at understanding what they are teaching), whether at a seminar or at a regular class.

So you assume that Mr. S didn't or hasn't done that? He doesn't have a right to disagree intelligently?

Sorry, I don't get that.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

Could you then please clarify what in Szczepan's opinion strikes you as well-considered intelligent disagreement? If you're not judging from experience with Endo Sensei, then I'm assuming you accept his claims about Endo Sensei's teaching style on face value (which is perfectly legitimate, as Szczepan is known as an experienced, no-nonsense Aikido practitioner).

But if you were one of the "believers", how would you go about refuting his claims? We have witnesses of practitioners who attended Endo Sensei's seminars and whose accounts are diametrically opposite to Szczepan's; what is their value, vs. Szczepan's? We have Endo Sensei's DVD on kihon waza as proof that he in fact pays close attention to basics; what is its value in this argument? Szczepan discounts adherents of this type of training as those that always blame their uke if their technique doesn't work, as those who "has never been hit" if their technique is not martially sound. This is just a sweeping generalization, does it have to be refuted as well? And how? :-)

I think you refuted them very well just now. You simply discussed the issues without the emotions, or casting the opposite opinion in rather negative terms to start.

Let's be clear...I am an outsider looking in. I have no experience with Endo Shihan, and little experience with this style (Yamaguchi Shihan) of training. I have done some locally, and have had the priviledge of some contact with 5-6th dans. And I really enjoyed that training. But the things Mr. S. has mentioned also seemed to be present even in the environments I was exposed to.

I really don't have a dog in this fight...I'm just asking questions, and thinking. And I appreciate the conversation, so I don't mean to cast it negatively either. Thanks for tolerating this YoshOrc (TM)...

Best,
Ron
PS I should perhaps correct myself...the local group from that tradition NEVER talks on the mat. They just sweat!
B,
R

Last edited by Ron Tisdale : 04-21-2009 at 01:25 PM.

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

... so he may have changed his teaching style, but in my experience Endo Sensei's classes are very clearly taught and structured, ...

His teaching style hasn't changed. But I think it is very difficult, to get the point, if not being used to his approach to Aikido.
As I said before: After my first seminar with him I was unsure what to expect from him.

Quote:

when I saw him at Hombu Dojo in 1993 he was certainly teaching "standard" aikido techniques. His first DVD (Kihon no Kata) contains nothing but "normal" aikido techniques.

Well I think his Aikido is standard up to this day. That is the reason why I asked what style of Aikido Szczepzuk practices. Because Endos techniques are typical Aikikai and have - compared to the shihan responsible for Germany - a much more martial charakter.

Quote:

As I understand it, he teaches things in in his classes which he feels can only be transmitted in person, while he encourages us to study his videos to learn how to execute techniques. I would think that Endo Sensei has a similar intention when he conducts overseas seminrs.

That's exactly the point.
When I attend a class of Endo I don't expect do be taught ikkyo. I expect to be taught doing ikkyo better. And simply that is what is happening.

Quote:

Szczepan Janczuk wrote:

I see you are one of ‘believers'.

Grin, I'm a Lutheran Christian (a professional), so as far as Endo doesn't start to claim to be Jesus Christ, "believer" isn't the right word.

Well I began to test his approach to aikido because he is sempai of Christian Tissier and - together with him - shihan of our German Aikido Federation. And my own teacher trains with him. So I went to a seminar and tried out.

First I felt kind of you did, but some things caught my intention:

First: I saw a sandan-examination. I experienced how demanding Endo was. Especially about kata, about kihon waza. It had to precise and clear. That is something I love: Clear and approved kihon, no playing around or fantasy forms.
Good old Aikikai Aikido. (

Second: There where a lot of exercises I did not understand (but do now) but three or four worked astonishingly well. And I got an Idea what to get out of it because it were answers to questions I had asked myself for a while:
Creating contact to the attacker by myself. Not depending on him. Controlling him and moving him in a very effective way and without depending on him. Not relying on uke in a broader sense.
(Tissier taught similar things just one month later. Maybe I just heard the answers because I was “ripe”.)
No more “If uke looses the contact …” or “If uke does this or that …”

Third: Although he moved his uke in a way I hadn’t seen before, the things Endo taught worked on a non-esoteric way. What he taught was just technique, physical. I noticed, his uke weren’t doing him “favours” (knew some of them) and I couldn’t explain how he could throw them so hard the way he did.
I had examined and trained Aikido for some 13 years but couldn’t explain, why it worked.
But I understood: It’s not magic, it can be learned by me (I am not an Aikido talent but have to learn everything the long way), it could be practiced and – that’s important to me: It could be taught by me to my students.
No miracle, just physical.

Quote:

One of those, who during seminars, sit around and admire Endo sensei beautiful technique and how well he applies very sophisticated principles?

Well, last year I attended a yudansha seminar an was very very glad, when there was the opportunity to sit and listen to whatever. I’m just nidan, only 14 years of Aikido then.
I was a junior in that seminar. And I the first day I thought I wouldn’t survive.

I don’t want to admire Endo’s technique, but I want to practice, and to be taught by my seniors and by Sensei himself. What do I get out of it if he can apply whatever but I can’t?
I want to experience whether those “sophisticated principals” work, how they work, how they improve ikkyo or irimi nage (yesterday evening).

Quote:

See, me, I'm not sitting during seminars. I'm not learning from books, DVD or from talks. I'm using all this time for purely physical practice.

Well I’m using only the time I can afford for physical practice. My family, my parish allow only three times a week and the weekends. (I’ve got a colleague and can manage attending seminars.) When I wasn’t married and father and had no own parish I practiced six times a week. … Good old times …
So I’m glad to have DVDs, books (which show me that our Aikido is just common Aikikai) or talks.
And: Hey, we are here, talking.

Quote:

You can't teach beginners very sophisticated elements. Even if these elements are ‘the essence' of aikido.

Yes: I think Endo Seminars don’t have much benefit for beginners if they aren’t prepared, explained and evaluated (?) by their teacher.

Quote:

There were many other instructors, not only Yamaguchi and Endo sensei that were trying to teach only ‘essence' to beginners

Well Endo doesn’t teach only the “essence”. He teaches definite kihon waza. And he demands it for grading.

Quote:

… , Nakazono sensei, …

He was the first teacher of Tissier. And your criticism is exactly the same, Tissier voices.

Quote:

In all cases, those who didn't have very solid basic training, were not able to apply even roughly a single one of those sophisticated details with someone who was not very familiar with their style.

You remember: The emphasis on “very solid basic training” was one thing that caught me …

Your discussion reminds me a bit of similar discussions in university regarding different teachers' teaching style. For one thing, it's by nature subjective, since different people learn best differently (what is 'unusually clear' to one person may be exactly what is 'unusually unclear' to another). And a 'good prof' means something different if you take a class with them (i.e., a series of group lectures and assignments), something different if you attend a single stand-alone lecture, and something quite different entirely if they're your supervisor for an individual project of some kind... And it's not like every lecture by the same prof is the same anyway.

I.e., it's perfectly possible for two people to come out of a teaching experience with diametrically opposed experiences while both are simply being truthful and descriptive.

Why cant everyone use the same language, generalizations and assumptions Szczepan engages in?

You are correct, I should not have made the assumption that I did re. my statement on finding another teacher or working harder at understanding a particular teacher.

But that is entirely seperate from disagreeing inteligently.

Szczepan is clearly quite capable of wording clearly what he does or does not like....we just have to push back after the initial "heavy handed" statements to get at the meat of his opinions, which is how we end up here.

Szczepan is clearly quite capable of wording clearly what he does or does not like....we just have to push back after the initial "heavy handed" statements to get at the meat of his opinions, which is how we end up here.

I know, and he's got my ire up on more than one occation...you should see some of my responses to him on e-budo when discussing Gozo Shioda!

But I do find these discussions interesting...because I do train around a bit, and I find the different approaches facinating. Some I simply do not get, others I get to some degree, some really few I may even be so-so at. But they can all be interesting...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

An important point, however, is that I assume Endo Sensei would like to be able to teach his ikkyo (if we can agree that there's more than one valid interpretation of this "basic" technique). And in order to be able to do that, he needs to establish a common vocabulary, intent and feeling with the practitioners in attendance.

Daniel

Hello Daniel,
I know this is an important point. And this is the biggest weakness of this kind of teaching. Ch.Tissier calls it a 'Code". Without that, they are not able to teach in this style.
Me, without using beautiful words, I call it simply a 'uke set up', exactly as Pavlov trained his dogs.

Aikido is basically cooperating practice. But this is not enough for Endo sensei (and Ch. Tisser) teaching. In his style, uke must play a role by following particular rules. Similarly like an actor in the movie or in the theatre plays a role. I personally believe this approach has nothing to do with O sensei Budo training. In such environment, Nage is fooling himself, and Uke is helping him to create more and more illusions. It isn't a Way toward Harmony. It is a Way toward self satisfaction.

I strongly believe the capabilty of Nage must be independent of Uke's will. Instructor must be able to demonstrate the principles that he is teaching on any uke, not only on those that follow a 'set up'.

Hey, I've never even seen the guy nor was I at that seminar or any other seminar of his -- I don't actually have an opinion on the CONTENT of your discussion. For all I know, I would have learned a lot and loved it, how would I know?

Quote:

It's a big difference whether one likes this prof or one likes that prof.
Or someone says: He's not worth do be called a prof. He has nothing to teach.

I actually did mean more like the latter feeling more than the former (although I haven't noticed anything as strong as that in this discussion, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention).

I've had conversations (e.g. in high school) where people said things like your second comment quite openly to other students, and discussed why the person was still teaching (Unions? Politics? We couldn't figure it out - I remember one teacher in particular. We just figured it's hard to fire teachers), even assuming their incompetence as a high school teacher was too obvious and extreme to be at all controversial, and being quite startled when talking to someone else years later and mentioning teachers from high school, hearing 'The best at that school was definitely Mr. ______. Oh my God he was so great -- he was my favourite teacher in all of high school -- it was like the only class that year I learned anything in! I wonder whatever happened to him?"

In my understanding, the rationale for what you call "uke setup" is not to make life easier for the nage, or make him/her look good, although it certainly might seem that way. On the contrary: this training requires the uke to continue the engagement for as long as it is practically possible and martially reasonable, only give up when it makes sense and no opportunities for reversals are present (instead of "tanking"), and take ukemi from the best possible position for the uke so that s/he is then able to regroup and continue the attack. Incidentally, it is precisely due to this continuous engagement by the two practitioners that these beautiful-looking (and often frowned upon) soft high falls are possible, and these exercises can be an excellent teaching tool for demonstrating the necessity of such constant engagement, instead of tanking. Moreover, this type of ukemi can allow the nage to use more power in applying techniques, when the nage knows the uke can take it, thus enriching the training experience.

There's no question that the nage should be able to handle whatever comes his/her way from the uke. However, certain attempts to maintaining the attack on the uke's part can make the engagement more interesting, challenging and ultimately fulfilling for the nage (and, indeed, for the uke as well). The instructor needs to demonstrate this during class, assuming that it's in the instructor's interest to convey this principle to the students. How can the instructor demonstrate this, then, if the uke is not providing an appropriate attack? Certainly, an instructor of the ability you speak of can dump the uke on his/her butt, but how does that fit into the teaching? What have the students learned from this encounter? Should the instructor just say - well, I wanted to demonstrate a yokomen-uchi shiho-nage, but it really didn't make sense in the way this guy was attacking me, so I reverted to an irimi-nage instead. A valuable lesson, certainly, but this is not what the instructor wanted to teach at that particular point during the class. These students could really use some time practicing that yokomen-uchi shiho-nage; what is the instructor to do? Don't you agree that a "setup" is required for this teaching situation?